On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 20:59 +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > Please confirm that each of the above `dig` commands > was **all** done at `host.example.com`
Yes, of course. > Please, pretty please, say if I missed that `dig example.com. ns` was > done on two different machines. No it was not. It would not be a valid bug report if it were. > Acknowledge. Please repeat the original test with > > dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns > dig +short @127.0.0.1 mail.example.com. > dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns You can see from the previous dig results that they were all @127.0.0.1. All reported: ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1) in their trailer. In any case: # dig +short @127.0.0.1 example.com. ns server.example.com. # dig +short @127.0.0.1 mail.example.com. 126.96.36.199 # dig +short @127.0.0.1 interlinx.bc.ca. ns server.example.ca. ns1.he.net. ns2.he.net. ns3.he.net. ns4.he.net. ns5.he.net. Cheers, b.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasqfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss